PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE

Rule of admissibility of similar acts as evidence

- The evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to ptovr
that he did or did not do the same thing at another time

- But it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, habit,
custom or usage and the like

TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE

A witness van testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his own perception.

ILLUSTRATION: CASE (People vs. Avendaño, January 28, 2003)

Before the crime of murder was committed where a child witness saw it, the accused coughed four
times. This was the basis of the identification of the accused by the child witness. Accused questioned
the child’s testimony with respect to his recognition of the coughing made by the accused. He
contended that it is unbelievable and that any identification made in this manner is subject to mistakes.
Rule on this contention.

ANSWER: The contention of the accused is not correct. Once a person has gained familiarity with
another, identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance. The sound of the
person’s voice is an acceptable means of identification where it is established that the witness and the
accused knew each other personally and closely for a number of years.

In this case, the witness has known the accused for about three to four years. The latter lived in
the same barangay and his farm was right beside the house where the witness lived.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE (LEGAL HEARSAY or INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS)

Hearsay evidence – evidence which have no probative value because it is not based on the personal
knowledge of witness

1. Dying Declaration
2. Declaration against interest
3. Act or declaration about pedigree
4. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
5. Common reputation
6. Part of the res gestae
7. Entries in the course of business
8. Entries in official records
9. Commercial lists and the like
10. Learned treaties
11. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
NOTE: The purpose of introducing these out of court statements is its utterances of such fact which is
relevant to the issue; not for the purpose of establishing the truth of the statement.

May a person be convicted on the basis of hearsay evidence?

No. The settled rule is that conviction can never be based on hearsay evidence. Any oral or
documentary evidence is hearsay in nature if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge
of the witness, but on knowledge of some other person who was never presented on the witness stand.

Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that a witness can only testify to those facts
that he knows of his personal knowledge, otherwise such testimony is inadmissible for being hearsay.

 A private certification is hearsay where the person who issued the same was never presented as
witness. The same is true of a letter

NOTE: The objection on the admissibility of the evidence should be made immediately after the
presentation and offer by the offeror to the court, otherwise the right to object shall be deemed waived.

However, the absence of such objection does not confer on said evidence any more probative value.
Whether objected to or not, hearsay evidence has no probative value because there was no opportunity
to check the veracity of the information contained.

ILLUSTRATION: In a case of murder, appellant contended that the testimony of the witnesses is hearsay.
He contended that the testimonies of the witnesses that they overheard a conversation between
Rolando and Beverly that they will fetch a man in Bulacan who knew how to place a bomb in a vehicle is
hearsay. Is the contention correct? Why?

ANSWER: NO. It is not hearsay. The hearsay rule states that a witness may not testify as to what he
merely learned from others either because he was told, or he read or heard the same. This is derived
from Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which requires that a witness can testify only to those
facts that he knows of or comes from his personal knowledge or derived from his perception.

Hence, the witness who testifies is competent because he heard the same, as this is a matter of
fact derived from his own perception.

Take note that admissibility and weight or credibility are not the same.

REQUISITES THAT MUST BE PRESENTED FOR DYING DECLARATION TO BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE:

1. Must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death;
2. That at the time it was made, the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death;
3. That he was a competent witness
4. That his declaration is offered in evidence in a criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide in
which the declarant is the victim

Doctrine of completeness of dying declaration

 - Dying declaration must be complete. To be complete, it should express in full all that he
intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect of such fact. It must include all that the
declarant wished or intended to include.

Any method of communication is adopted. The nod of the head or a glance of the eyes can be done.
Other persons or the police can testify on the dying declaration.

ILLUSTRATION: (People vs. Ronito Boller, April 3, 2002)

The accused argued that the testimony of the barangay tanod cannot be admissible in evidence
because he reduced the oral dying declaration of the victim into writing using his own language and
without reading the same to the deceased before he expired or that it was not signed by the declarant.

Is the contention of the accused correct? Why?

ANSWER: No. The Rules does not require the witness to repeat the exact words of the victim, it being
sufficient that he testify on the substance of what was said by the declarant. The rule is that a dying
declaration may be oral or written. If oral, the witness who hear it may testify thereto without necessity
of reproducing the word of the decedent if he is able to give the substance thereof.

IF A PERSON WHO MADE A DYING DECLARATION DID NOT DIE IMMEDIATELY, IS THE DYING
DECLARATION STILL ADMISSIBLE? EXPLAIN.

Yes. The fact that the victim did not expire right after his declaration but survived seven days
thereafter, will not alter the probative force of his dying declaration. The rule on dying declaration does
not require that the person should be at the time in the throes of death, or that he should die
immediately, or within any specified time thereafter, in order to give the declaration probative force.